Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 March 31

File:Flora Martirosian.png – When participation rates are as low as they are at places like FFD etc its perfectly possible to have a local consensus that does not match the wider meta consensus and in closing these discussions we traditionally allow the closing admin to exercise a far wider discretion than is permitted at AFD for example to counter these outlier discussions. As such, we have to expect a wider range of variation in decision-making then the ideal. There is clearly no-consensus to overturn the close so the outcome is endorse. Having said that, the closer of a DRV has discretion to relist a discussion when they think that would be helpful or the earlier discussion was defective and I note that of the two keep votes in the FFD, one was by mangoe who now votes to overturn on an interesting point about commercial rights. This hasn't been discussed at all so I'm going to relist this for that to be explored. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion is at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_April_9

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The "keep" !votes were not grounded in policy, and the outcome is inconsistent with the more recent, more thoroughly argued Chris Kyle [1] and Steenkamp Tropika [2] FFD's, and the closer's rationale for the latter is particularly well-thought-out and convincing. The recent death of a public figure is not carte blanche to use nonfree images in a bio article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight... one FFD went one way, a couple of more went another way, and you want us to overturn one just because others went a different way? Isn't that textbook WP:WAX? Endorse unless a more convincing argument about how the particular deletion discussion was fundamentally wrong in its conclusion, rather than just different than the others the nominator likes better. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The outcome was fundamentally wrong because the keep arguments expressly disagreed with fundamental aspects of WMF policy concerning nonfree content, which can't be relaxed or have exceptions created by en-wiki consensus. When keep !voters say things like "I would presume that there is no non-free image until one is produced" or argue that because they can't find an image identified as free using only a Google search, they're making arguments incompatible with WMF policy that nonfree content is not allowed if "we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose." As I pointed out in the FFD discussion, without any disagreement, the article subject "was a public figure who made regular public appearances. Apart from concert performances, Google image search shows the subject appearing at the sort of public events from which WP regularly receives free images from photographers." No one came up with any basis for denying that those circumstances create a reasonable expectation that a free image could be made available. This FFD discussion is a rather plain departure from policy principles, perhaps a unique one, as is evident from the outcomes in parallel discussions, particularly the ones cited.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment The comment from Jimbo is now over six years old, and can be tested against the reality of our being able to obtain publicity pictures. It does not in fact seem to me to be borne out. What seems to me to be the case is that we are generally not able to wheedle people into giving us their existing images, and that therefore once a person is dead (or to be more realistic, is out of the public eye), we will never get a free picture; there is no reservoir of potentially free pictures for us to draw upon. If we want to set an explicitly higher standard (e.g., not using non-free images less than, say, fifteen years old), fine. The "reasonable expectation" standard is proving to be problematic in its interpretation; it seems reasonable to me to say that one could never expect to get a free picture which one of us hadn't taken. But there's really no way to come to an objective conclusion about what is reasonable without running a study on how many of these deletions are resolved by replacement with a free picture. My experience is that they are deleted and never replaced, and never will be replaced. Given further discussion about another case, the policy is self-contradictory on this point: we must simply eliminate these fair use claims and delete all these images without regard to the "reasonable expectation" clause, because commercial use trumps it in every case. Mangoe (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Struck in favor of later comment. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure how to call these sorts of things, obviously there was a weak consensus to keep, but what does one do when the consensus is based on abject ignorance of copyright? "I like articles with pictures" and "I don't think I can find a free one" sentiments carry the day sometimes, and that isn't right. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, the policy does not ban non-free images. The method to determine if the criteria is met or not met is precisely an XfD. What about when arguments that are about "non-free content shouldn't be allowed, period" carry the day, and that isn't right either. And to be honest, having monitored and participated in more than a few of these, I can say with certainty that most often than not the argument against inclusion wins the day, even when it shouldn't have under the law and under the principles. That said, this is a policy discussion that is as old as the encyclopedia, but one of the problems is that there is a camp of editors who only want a purely free images policy, out of principled commitment to free documentation principles, who are perfectly willing to sacrifice encyclopedic quality for it. It is a tension that exists between the goal of a free (As in beer and as in freedom) project, and the goal of an encyclopedia. Some of us believe there needs to be a middle ground and this middle ground is indeed allowed by copyright law. That said, in this particular case, the consensus - however thin - is that the policy caveat was met. If this was incorrect, what method do you suggest we use? Because the reality is, the only decision making process we have is the XfD. --Cerejota (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, quite clearly no consensus to delete. The criteria that the nominator tried to get the image deleted under is inherently subjective, and obviously those that cared to respond did not agree with their view of it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse. It is hard to see why arguments of the form "no free alternative is available because none has so far been found", which is objectively falsifiable, should be discounted by the closer in favour of arguments of the form "a free alternative might be available" which is not falsifiable and therefore subjective. In the absence of a consensus for the second argument the closer has no choice but to keep. Spinning Spark 09:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete This needs to be deleted because it transgresses against the "commercial use" clause. The "reasonable expectation of a free alternative" is hopelessly subjective and is irrelevant. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would a picture of a dead singer on a Wikipedia article about the singer negatively affect anyone's ability to profit of her?--64.229.164.74 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about profitting off her, but about making money from selling the photograph. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There was no consensus to delete. Warden (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Those who claim it was against policy are wrong. Our policies do allow non-free content under specific guidelines. And in the examples of these guidelines it explicitly says:

"Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely."

The purpose of the discussion is to determine if this burden is met. The discussion clearly determined that it is met. So the objections here and there for deletion based on policy largely have the policy wrong. They should argue that a substitute is reasonably likely to emerge, which they are not. We have very strict policies around non-free content, but we do not have a blanket ban on non-free content. This is the mistake most arguments for deletion are making. I do agree that this policy opens the door to subjective judgement where none should be, but this is a problem of the policy itself. In the application of this ambiguity we rely on XfDs and !votes and in this case the closer made a decision entirely within the discretion allowed to closers and in accordance to the policy on non-free content, which allows such content under certain conditions. The arguments to delete here and there are somewhat circular in this respect, as well as being subjective while denying the right of people to be subjective in the opposite direction. --Cerejota (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.